Thought Col. Dooley would like to know that he is in pretty good company. Please pass on to him. You might also note the date when this was written, over 100 years ago and nothing has changed.

Churchill on Islam

Winston Churchill 1899."Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.No stronger retrograde force exists in the world."===============================================================================================

This is amazing! Even more amazing is that this hasn't been more widely published long before now….

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM:Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899 (Check Wikipedia - The River War).

The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.

He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.

HERE IS THE SPEECH:"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Because when I want to learn about some other faith or culture, I always turn some 19th Century British WHITE MAN, who totes obvs won't have any biases, prejudices and will be totally objective and rational in HIS viewpoints and observations.

"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property..."

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=18566

"The property rights of women during most of the nineteenth century [in Great Britain] were dependent upon their marital status. Once women married, their property rights were governed by English common law, which required that the property women took into a marriage, or acquired subsequently, be legally absorbed by their husbands. Furthermore, married women could not make wills or dispose of any property without their husbands' consent. Marital separation, whether initiated by the husband or wife, usually left the women economically destitute, as the law offered them no rights to marital property."

Yes, it's quite clear that old Winney there was eminently qualified to cast aspersions on Muslims... due to the fact that Churchill lived in a system that pretty much did the same things! Takes one to know one, eh Winney?

What's unbelievable about a racist, anti-Muslim screed being written by the British powers at the height of their Empire? It's how Imperialism works - convinces dullards in the populace to believe that THEY are morally and in other ways "superior" to the "savages, low lifes, deadbeats, and devil-worshippers" in the countries colonized the British in order to rip off said colonies and oppress or murder the locals.

What's of some interest here is how 19C British propaganda is still used by the PTB in Hegemon Imperialistic USA/UK today, and I don't mean just by quoting Winnie. I mean, the exact same tactic, as used by Winnie, is used by our Oligarchs today to justify their out of control murdering and looting in foreign lands... because of so-called "American Exceptionalism."

You make a good point, gruaud (and now get ready for both of us to be "accused" of being homosexual lovers, as if that's a horrifying slur).

Since it's Halloween, I just have to say: of course Dooley and the other Islamophobic pundits are highly compensated by the 1% to barf out this nonsense bc unending WAR, Inc. is very very profitable. CHA CHING!!

Scaring stupid USians & convincing them to be racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamaphobic assholes, whether conservatives or otherwise, is just icing on the cake.

I'm going to answer this DREADED rightwing forward just like you clowns would (if not better).

Get pad and pencil and take notes, boys:

From an American perspective: I've read and enjoyed that book, it is wonderfully descriptive and many of his insights aboutthe Western/Islamic conflict remain somewhat relevant, but notabsolutely true. Aside from everything else, Churchill wasalso a pre-eminent historian of "the English-Speaking Peoples" as he phrased it. Apparently there's two different versions of the book out there. Theone-volume 1902 version is easily available:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ldid=420401732

> Wikipedia has 3 different links to it.>> But the quotes in question supposedly appear in the 1899 two-volumeversion, which I can't find online. The words "votary" and "dreadful" don'tappear> in the one-volume version.>> The one-volume version has this nice quote:>> Quote:> For more than a thousand years the influence of Mohammedanism, whichappears to possess a strange fascination for Negroid races, has beenpermeating the Soudan, and, although ignorance and natural obstacles impedethe progress of new ideas, the whole of the black race is graduallyadopting the new religion and developing Arab characteristics. In thedistricts of the north, where the original invaders settled, the evolutionis complete, and the Arabs of the Soudan are a race formed by theinterbreeding of negro and Arab, and yet distinct from both... Thequalities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab andnegro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking becausethey are more intelligent than the primitive savages.> The whole book is pretty racist, what with it being an account of thewhite man's appointment with his destiny to conquer black and "Mohammedan"men. The New York Times review of the 1899 version says as much: "The RiverWar was... a logical and an important incident in the progressive story ofour race." It opens by listing British conquests in Africa, then saysthey're "part of one great movement. This movement is centuries old. It hasits vicissitudes, but it is the most persistent political phenomenon nowvisible to mankind. It is the forward movement of the men born to speak theEnglish tongue." http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...in&oref=sloginThere we go, toss in some sexism and ethnocentrism while we're at it.>> BTW....The horribly PROGRESSIVE liberal Obama is angry that the West won WWII,largely in part to the brilliance of Churchill…>> He would’ve much preferred we lost, and been relegated to a 2nd classsociety…..ha ha ha :-)>> Returning Winston Churchill’s bust was one of the FIRST rotten thingsthat Obama (that damn "N" word) did when he began his first term.>> THAT was a clue. That bust was a gift to the American People from theformer Great Britain and not just some decoration in OUR White House..

But, your boy Obummer used to get high as a kite as often as he could back in his formative years.

I wonder what Obama's obsession was all about with marijuana? What was the impetus that made him turn to the mean weed so often...Was Mary Jane Obummer's escape mechanism.....or was he continually getting stoned to avoid having to face reality that his biological Kenyan Daddy abandoned him?

Returning Winston Churchill’s bust was one of the FIRST rotten thingsthat Obama (that damn "N" word) did when he began his first term.>> THAT was a clue. That bust was a gift to the American People from theformer Great Britain and not just some decoration in OUR White House.

The statue wasn't a gift; it was a loan, and its return to Great Britain, its rightful owner, was required.

Your repeatedly referring to the president as "Obummer" suggests that you're immature. You're reference to him as a "horribly PROGRESSIVE liberal" demonstrates that you're poorly informed.

Let's examine what the "horribly PROGRESSIVE liberal" President Barack Obama has done:

He hasn't lifted a finger to close Guantanamo Bay, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He hasn't given the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay their Constitutionally guaranteed trials, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's lowered taxes three times despite a promise to raise them, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's spending at the lowest rate of any president in the last fifty years, and spending cuts is what the Republicans wanted.

He has lowered the deficit every year since he took office, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He ignored economists' recommendations for a $2 trillion stimulus and went with $800 billion instead, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He signed the bill, which made 40% of the stimulus tax cuts, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's reduced the size of the Federal government by 600,000 jobs, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's continued the War on Drugs, after saying he wouldn't, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's exported a record number of illegals, so many, in fact, that those on the left have been calling him the "Deporter in Chief", which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's killed a record number of terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He implemented a 2% payroll tax cut which may jeopardize Social Security's future, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He's killed American citizens using drones without charging them with a crime, and while we don't know if the Republicans wanted that, they certainly haven't complained about it.

He has refused to put anyone from the Bush administration on trial for torturing people, including U.S. citizens, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He has refused to prosecute anyone from Wall Street who was involved in crashing the world economy in 2007-2008, which is what the Republicans wanted.

He effectively put the DREAM Act into place, which is a bill originally sponsored by Republicans (Orrin Hatch, R-UT, has proposed the bill ten times.)

Did not include single payer, to appease the insurance industry, which is what the Republicans wanted.

Did not include a public option, to appease the pharmaceutical industry, which is what the Republicans wanted.

His health care plan was more conservative than those previously proposed by Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole or Richard Nixon.

His health care plan included the insurance mandate created by the conservative Heritage Foundation and first proposed by Republicans Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA)and later implemented by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts as Romneycare.

He allowed the Republicans to make 160 changes to the finished bill, essentially gutting it.

Barack Obama is a "horribly PROGRESSIVE liberal"? I think "horribly" is the operative word there. If I were a Republican, I'd be demanding that we put his face on Mount Rushmore as thanks for all he's done for Republican interests.

You're right about one thing. As a progressive liberal, President Obama is horrible.

I'm not even sure what "Mike Hawk" is even saying anymore. I think there may be more than one using that handle (?). At any rate, duly noted that somehow gruaud and ferschitz got "promoted" off of "Hawkie's" gaydar into being just "liberal weenies." whoo hoo...

PS "Hawkie's" comments this time around do seem to indicate s/he's either drunk or on drugs. What a mish-mash.

Churchill helped shape the history of the 20th century against TYRANNY and FOR Freedom. Obama really hates THAT, don't all you rightwing "conservatives" know that???? Hey Barry, get your feet off of OUR furniture, especially the "Resolute" Desk ! And take your boot off of our neck.

But I digress, again, Churchill was an imperialist who saw all other cultures and religions as inferior to his own. Churchill may have some thoughts of his own about Mohammedians (by the way no Muslim ever calls himself a Mohammedianin real world...ever(it is only used by the non-Muslims). But, he was wrong in his assumptions of Muslim men as masters of women.

The truth is ISLAM, is the only religion in the world which preaches equality of the genders in the world. It is Arab culture, in general, that does not. Big difference. Churchill may have found some men in Sudan at that time, that may have been treating their women folk as slaves. It doesn't make Muslim men to be blamed for some thoughts and acting like them a mistake. Churchill may be a great war hero, but it doesn't makehim an authority on ISLAM at all, and his words can't be taken as truth and be treated as gospel. After all, he was a mortal man andcan be wrong about his thoughts about Islam....especially at the "ripe old age of 24". I don't think he ever read the HOLY QURAN. If he have read it properly, I am sure his thinking about Islam would have been different.

BTW - My favorite Churchill-ism: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Some concluding observations, then (from a liberal weenie perspective) about young Winston Churchill's rant about Islam in this widely circulated trashmail.

1. The passage, as has been noted, is from v 2 of The River War, 1899, pp 248-50. We have an electronic copy at UGA, so I read it.2. The passage is INCOMPLETE. It happens to leave out WSC’s praise of Muslim soldiers: "Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die ..." Then the rant resumes. But why did the trashmailer leave out these lines, which come after the bit about how individual Muslim may be good fellows. Thousands of Muslim are brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen and will give up their lives for her and England. But they are base, backward, degenerate? Hello! Maybe that is all they are good for, to be the Queen's cannon fodder. Is this what you mean, Winston? His sort of thinking borders on the pathological.3. The CONTEXT of course is missing from the trash e-mail. Why do we never wonder about context when such pompous self-important nonsense arrives in our inboxes? So what was it that set off WSC into a hyper-tizzy? It seems that the Muslim engineer driving the troop or supply train on which young Winston was riding had not maintained it properly and it broke down well short of its destination. So all that ranting about how abominable Mohammedanism makes its “votaries”, how degraded they become in their thought, how primitive in their treatment of women, bluster bluster bluster—all that vile undigested prejudice because a native engineer with a rudimentary knowledge of mechanics (remember, we are in South Africa in the days of de facto apartheid) did not grease and oil his steam engine as a good British lad trained at a Birmingham or Manchester technical school would have. One poorly trained, or maybe just bored and inattentive, native mechanic exposes the baseness of hundreds of millions of people. In Freshman Comp, reasoning like this gets a well-earned F.4. And last but not least ... young Winston was young at the time of the incident, around 24 or 25, an emotionally-starved son of two cold and distant parents. How dare he pontificate on civilizations that flourished when his ancestors quivered in mud huts at the sound of thunder. Who is really being abominable here, I wonder.

The real stupidity of this verse is its claim that the Muslim world was backward. They actually had a very advanced civilization hundreds of years before the western world caught up from about the 1600s.Islam had universities, a diplomatic corp, cryptography, astronomy, chemistry, soap, and medicine: at a time when most of Europe was illiterate and living in poverty or serfdom.

P.S. - Also note: the expression "rule of thumb" comes from old English law that allowed a husband to beat his wife witha rod the diameter of his thumb.

Kinda like ferschitz and gruaud do!!!! (That is, if those two gay dudes ever got married to someone from the OPPOSITE sex) bwahahahahaha

Welcome to the Right-Wing Forward Museum

MyRightWingDad.net is a museum dedicated to following the course of American history through a unique lens -- the emails "Red-America" forwards worldwide. Take a look around the archive using the keywords below, and leave a comment or two.

This museum displays unedited, often offensive and untrue material with no endorsement intended by curators or contributors.